Apostles

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are saying that miracles are like a uniform that a policeman wears so that everyone can see he is a policeman.

That is not my experience at all.

Really? What experience have you had of apostles? Recall we are talking about apostles, not miracles in general.

Perhaps in my experience miracles are the Policeman's gun that shoots the bad guy right before he kills you. Or it might be the hypodermic needle the doctor uses to save the dying man. Do we really want to determine who the real police are by the way they shoot guns? Or who the real doctors are by the drugs they inject into people?

I think you are totally missing my point.

I simply said, if signs are a required indication of apostles then by definition we need to have some way of knowing about an alleged apostles signs.

Why is that statement so hard to follow?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Really? What experience have you had of apostles? Recall we are talking about apostles, not miracles in general.



I think you are totally missing my point.

I simply said, if signs are a required indication of apostles then by definition we need to have some way of knowing about an alleged apostles signs.

Why is that statement so hard to follow?

No, my post was referring to your analogy of miracles being a uniform, and in my experience miracles are not at all like a uniform.

1. "Signs are a required indication of an apostle." [I can accept that, even I can say Amen to that. I would say that a true Apostle is a coworker of God, and at some point that should be made clear through a sign or a miracle].

2. "Then by definition we need to have some way of knowing about an alleged apostles signs." [I can also agree with this statement once we clarify who the term "we" refers to].

My issue is this. An apostle, if he is a "missionary" will be preaching the gospel to hundreds of people, perhaps thousands. These people may have not had any prior experience of Christians, or else a very limited experience. So this is really something they are brand new to. How does this person learn of the miracles? If you are talking about a coworker, I would expect they would see the miracles take place first hand. For the gospel contacts I also hope it would be first hand experience. It is not something that the servant needs to discuss, your focus should be on ministering and serving. When the Lord chooses He may provide a sign or a miracle.

For example, I read a story about George Mueller. He had said if they ever were unable to feed the kids at the orphanage he would close it down because it was evidence that God was no longer a coworker. One Sunday they came to him, said they didn't have any food, it was in the afternoon, dinner was a few hours away, they had nothing to cook, and the stores were closed. So he gathered all the serving ones together to pray. A few minutes later someone came and said there was a truck outside full of meat. The driver said that he had come to deliver it and the store was closed and the meat would go bad so the people in the town had directed him to the orphanage.

So surely, all the coworkers and serving ones were well aware of God's hand in the ministry. But do you now broadcast this? Do you send out a letter to donors? Mueller refused to do so and waited about 6 months to send out his next letter. His reason was based on a principle, he decided it would be insulting to God to ever send out letters to the supporters when they were low on funds. So, there was no way to "trumpet" this miracle, or "parade around wearing this miracle" without also revealing that they were low on funds. The story showed up in the biography years later, but far too late for anyone to decide they want to contribute to this ministry or participate in it. Let people come to the ministry out of a burden to serve, not out of the hope to see Jesus walk across their swimming pool.

The road that leads to life is a narrow way and few there be that find it. If you put miracles on the servant like a purple robe you make it too easy for the unbelievers and fleshly to find this way. When they were deciding to crucify Jesus they said that there was no prophecy of any prophet coming out of Nazareth. Even these learned Bible scholars were unaware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they were unaware that wise men from the East had come giving him gifts after seeing his star, they were unaware that as a result of this thousands of kids were killed. No doubt these events were part of their relatively recent history, yet Jesus never went around saying that He was that kid. He never told anyone that Herod himself had wanted to kill Jesus as a baby.

This is why I do not like the analogy of a policeman's uniform.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My issue is this. An apostle, if he is a "missionary" will be preaching the gospel to hundreds of people, perhaps thousands. These people may have not had any prior experience of Christians, or else a very limited experience. So this is really something they are brand new to. How does this person learn of the miracles?

Right, but if he's preaching the gospel he's acting as an evangelist, not an apostle, so miracles are not required.

An apostle (in the context of our discussion) is one who has special authority to dictate truth to multiple churches, to directly lead multiple churches, to administer discipline to multiple churches, to appoint elders in multiple churches, and so forth. This is the kind of apostle Paul was, and the kind WL was purported to be.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right, but if he's preaching the gospel he's acting as an evangelist, not an apostle, so miracles are not required.

An apostle (in the context of our discussion) is one who has special authority to dictate truth to multiple churches, to directly lead multiple churches, to administer discipline to multiple churches, to appoint elders in multiple churches, and so forth. This is the kind of apostle Paul was, and the kind WL was purported to be.

And pretty much the kind Hudson Taylor was, or William Carey was.

Again, I did not use the term "evangelist" though you would expect a missionary to evangelize (as Paul also did). Rather I used the term Missionary because we had earlier agreed in this thread that Christianity has shy'ed away from the term Apostle and instead substituted the word missionary.

(Also, the Bible makes it very clear that miracles are for the unbelieving, so, on the contrary they are very effective in the gospel. I had an evangelist share a story with me. He was in Haiti after the earthquake. There were gangs out to get his team. I think it was because of the way they distributed the food aid, I don't remember that part of the story. Anyway they were on a particular street corner preaching the gospel but regardless of how hard the gangs tried, they couldn't find them, even though people were telling them which street corner they were on. They said that when they got to the street corner they became "blind". This apparently was the testimony of the men in this gang.)

And this story illustrates to me, why miracles are a very poor substitute for the truth of the gospel. If you believe this brother's account, and I do, then it is a testimony of how God can be with us. But, if you don't believe it, what is the point, there is no way to prove it. However, the story was told as an explanation for why the crowds were suddenly coming to hear him preach. The local people had expected the gangs to come and stayed away, when they learned that they were unable to "find" him because they were going blind, then they came out in force. This is what a true miracle is supposed to be, it is God acting as a coworker. His miracle filled the hall so that now they could hear you preach the truth of the gospel.

[Cal]

If someone is too fastidious to produce his track record of signs and wonders then he ought to be too fastidious to accept the label of apostle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If some is too fastidious to produce his track record of signs and wonders then he ought to be too fastidious to accept the label of apostle.

Who cares about the label. Is that what this discussion is about? I thought the question was whether or not apostles exist today.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Who cares about the label. Is that what this discussion is about? I thought the question was whether or not apostles exist today.

Right. But the corollary to that is, if they exist, how to you know who they are?

Are we just supposed to call people apostles who we think are apostles?

Or are we supposed to call people apostles who say they are apostles?

Another corollary is avoiding the problems of false apostles. If being an apostle is such a fuzzy matter, aren't we opening the door to false apostles and major damage to the Body of Christ?

This thread has made me even more skeptical that there are true apostles today. We can't even agree on what an apostle is. So how are we going to know one when he comes along? This is a practical issue, not a theoretical one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The road that leads to life is a narrow way and few there be that find it. If you put miracles on the servant like a purple robe you make it too easy for the unbelievers and fleshly to find this way. When they were deciding to crucify Jesus they said that there was no prophecy of any prophet coming out of Nazareth. Even these learned Bible scholars were unaware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they were unaware that wise men from the East had come giving him gifts after seeing his star, they were unaware that as a result of this thousands of kids were killed. No doubt these events were part of their relatively recent history, yet Jesus never went around saying that He was that kid. He never told anyone that Herod himself had wanted to kill Jesus as a baby.

Good points. This is why I find it is almost impossible to use signs and wonders as the standard. The real ones won't advertize their works, and the false ones will.

[rayliotta]

If I could pipe in here, I get the feeling that what everyone really wants to be able to say is, something like this, Anybody who claims to be "an apostle", surely is not, because a real apostle would never make such a claim about himself.

But, of course, we're kind of stopped in our tracks. Simply because the most famous apostle of them all did boldly, and with certainty, do just that -- he openly declared himself as an apostle.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

If I could pipe in here, I get the feeling that what everyone really wants to be able to say is, something like this, Anybody who claims to be "an apostle", surely is not, because a real apostle would never make such a claim about himself.

But, of course, we're kind of stopped in our tracks. Simply because the most famous apostle of them all did boldly, and with certainty, do just that -- he openly declared himself as an apostle.

We can't be today like they were back 2000 years ago.

I'm not saying mythologies are dead today, but they certainly don't fill human minds like they did back 2000 years ago.

So apostles today can't be what apostles were back then, in Paul's day. Neither can the "signs wonders and miracles" be the same today.

We moderns don't so easily buy into such things, like people did back 2000 years ago.

If someone goes around today claiming signs wonders and miracles, people like James Randi will be on it like white on rice. Randi has a standing million dollar reward to anyone that can prove paranormal phenomena. He's had it for decades, and has busted and exposed fraud of, Christian faith healers left and right, and many others, that make such claims.

And they didn't have James Randi's back 2000 years ago. Their minds were way more superstitious than our minds today.

Examples :

1) Weather. Back 2000 years ago they thought God controlled the weather, and brought rains, floods, and droughts as punishment or reward.

Outside idiots like Michelle Bachmann, we don't believe God controls the weather. Not directly like they did back then (God controls everything in the end). We now know of weather systems. We can track them around the globe. We understand natural dynamics control the weather, not the hand of God. Today only the ignorant believe God directly controls the weather. And believe me, they were ignorant 2000 years ago. 90% couldn't read or write.

2) Earthquakes. Earthquakes are frightening. And they are powerful. So the natural inclination back 2000 years ago would be that they are caused by God. Only God could move the earth they would of course believe.

But today we don't see earthquakes as directly caused by God. We now have satellites tracking movements of the earth surface in inches, trying to predict and warn of earthquakes. We know that earthquakes are caused by shifting of Plate Tectonics.

And the list could go on and on, including the matter of the flat earth and the earth being the center of the universe.

And so too with the meaning of apostle and signs wonders and miracles. They are not going to mean the same thing today as they meant back 2000 years ago.

Try as we may, to put today's world in the same tapestry as back 2000 years ago, it is impossible. Not going to happen.

Today we will see anyone that claims to be an apostle as a possible cult leader, if not a real one.

Why do you think Lee's Recovery movement has been labelled a cult by so many, especially many ex-members of the LRC, who look upon their days in the local church as being in a cult that they came out of?

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

We can't be today like they were back 2000 years ago.
....Try as we may, to put today's world in the same tapestry as back 2000 years ago, it is impossible. Not going to happen.

This is true. "And they held all things in common" in Acts 2:44. Not going to happen today.

Lot of things that were going on in Jerusalem and Judea and Asia Minor in AD 30 - 90 not going to fly today.

But: "Love one another" is still good. "Forgive us Father as we forgive others who offend us" is still good. And so forth.

RayLiotta: Paul we give a pass to because of the weight of history. But if anyone else comes along and says, "Am I not also an apostle?" (1 Cor. 9:1) they are going to have to overcome the lack of 2,000 years of God's affirmation of such.

That includes Hudson Taylor, Martin Luther, Moody, Wesley, Graham, and anyone else you want to name.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

But: "Love one another" is still good. "Forgive us Father as we forgive others who offend us" is still good. And so forth.

All teachings that were around long before Jesus.

[OBW]

Why not just accept the gifts that are given to the church. Don't label them.

If it is a gift, then it is a gift. If it is not, then it is not.

Even Martin Luther. Was he clearly an apostle? Who knows for sure. It depends on your definition. But he was a gift to the church.

And so are the ones who meet you at the door of your assembly, or help you find you way around. Or take time to talk and pray with you. Or teach — whether to adults or to children. Should I go on?

Do we need to define an apostle to get his help? Do we need to define an apostle to see and know charlitans, posers, frauds, or even just the overly ambitious?

Seems that living the Christian life has come to a stop for the purpose of hashing over a potentially theoretical point of theology for a purpose that we aren't even sure is relevant to us to know that well. Well, not to a complete stop. But it has been seriously slowed as we line up angels and get out the metaphorical pin. I have an opinion. And I stated part of it days ago. But it really isn't that important.

We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

RayLiotta: Paul we give a pass to because of the weight of history. But if anyone else comes along and says, "Am I not also an apostle?" (1 Cor. 9:1) they are going to have to overcome the lack of 2,000 years of God's affirmation of such.

That includes Hudson Taylor, Martin Luther, Moody, Wesley, Graham, and anyone else you want to name.

Sure, but who's the "we" here? Based on what Ohio has said, it sounds like there are an awful lot of people for whom this explanation is highly unsatisfactory.

(And we're just talking about in the US, at least I think that's what we're talking about. Aren't there other parts of the world where Pentecostalism is really exploding right now? I don't know what the attitude toward "Apostles" is in other cultures, but I sure could speculate...)